[Mad Dawg]

Every time I ask for some scripture that confirms that the practices in discussion , there is no answer, because none exists..

You see, the very usage -- "scripture" meaning "proof text" -- to me suggests the problem with this approach to Scripture.

This is especially true because in a recent post I laid out the building blocks of the argument, with reference to a great many ideas discussed and referred to in the Pauline corpus. It was all right there -- and others have added other clarifying references.

As to the distinction between reliable tradition and unreliable, well I posted the little passage from St. Vincent of Lerins, that's as good a place to start from as any, that and Acts 15.

[RnMomof7]

You see, the very usage -- "scripture" meaning "proof text" -- to me suggests the problem with this approach to Scripture.

I am not asking for PROOF texts, I do not much like proof texts as they are verses taken out of context..like in the catholic catechism

What I am asking for is something in scripture IN CONTEXT that supports a doctrine.. If Catholics had them they would give them

I am not interested in having ANY doctrine supported by a FALLIBLE source ... I want to see the doctrine taught infallibly

For instance recently you semi quoted a scripture that it was the doctrine of MEN that Christ condemns.. I agree with that ...what I asked of you was HOW DO YOU determine what is the doctrine of men and what is a doctrine of God..

I am jumping around my pings..so I may have missed it.. but if i did could you tell me again?? What is your final authority ?